Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:08:06 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 200706122208.07360.elendil@planet.nl>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706121251q21450610oc9678f460a89240c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706111420o77eace98oa9cbdfcea4466fbd@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 20070612193650.GA26916@kitenet.net> <[🔎] 5fabd6fd0706121251q21450610oc9678f460a89240c@mail.gmail.com>

On Tuesday 12 June 2007 21:51, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I don't get it, as you also realized: unstable _is_ experimental.

No, it most certainly is *not*, and any developers who treat it as such 
should be drawn and quartered.

Attachment: pgp8s8yoB1vBS.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: "Gustavo Franco" <stratus@debian.org>
- Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
- Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
  - From: "Gustavo Franco" <stratus@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Next by Date: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Previous by thread: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Next by thread: Re: Two proposals for a better Lenny (testing related).
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread